Introduction
India’s overloaded court system—home to over 4 crore pending cases—has increasingly turned to mediation as a vital mechanism for resolving disputes efficiently. Court‑mandated mediation, whether pre‑litigation or court‑referenced during litigation, is now backed by legislation and statutes such as the Mediation Act, 2023 and Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Section 12A). While the system aims to decongest courts and build consensual justice, it also prompts debates about voluntariness, access to justice, and institutional readiness.
Legal Framework for Mandated Mediation
Commercial Courts Act & Pre‑Institution Mediation
Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, parties to a commercial dispute must attempt pre‑institution mediation—unless urgent interim relief is sought. The 2018 Rules set timelines and procedures for mediation before legal action can proceed. Benefits include fewer court filings and faster settlements; challenges include limited availability of qualified mediators.TaxGuru+1The RMLNLU Law Review Blog+1Khurana And Khurana+1Khaitan & Co+1Legal Service India+1O.P. Jindal Global University+1
Mediation Act, 2023
This comprehensive legislation:
-
Makes pre‑litigation mediation mandatory for most civil and commercial matters (Section 5–6) unless urgent interim relief is needed.Legal Service India+7Drishti Judiciary+7International Bar Association+7
-
Authorizes courts to refer disputes to mediation at any stage (Section 7), even mid-litigation, plus interim orders to protect interests during mediation.Drishti Judiciary
-
Establishes the Mediation Council of India to accredit institutions and practitioners.Mondaq+4Drishti Judiciary+4Legal Service India+4
-
Grants mediated settlement agreements the status of court decrees, enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure.The Hindu Business Line+6Legal Service India+6Drishti Judiciary+6
-
Sets time limits: 120 days for mediation, extendable by 60 days with consent.The Hindu Business Line+4Legal Service India+4Legal Service India+4
Debates & Institutional Concerns
Voluntariness vs Compulsion
Critics argue that mandatory mediation undermines party autonomy—the essence of consensual dispute resolution. Yet legal provisions mitigate coercion via a clear opt‑out mechanism (initial mediation meeting followed by parties’ choice to opt out). Courts also retain the power to refer cases at their discretion.Wikipedia+14The RMLNLU Law Review Blog+14O.P. Jindal Global University+14
Institutional Readiness
Concerns include insufficient mediator availability, inconsistent training standards, and weak awareness among legal professionals. In some regions, especially outside metro courts, structured mediation mechanisms remain nascent.The RMLNLU Law Review BlogThe Hindu Business Line
Access to Justice & Exemptions
Although the law mandates mediation, it also explicitly exempts disputes needing interim relief, urgent injunctions, or complex public interest matters. Constitutional scholars caution that mandatory triggers should not restrict fundamental rights to approach courts.Legal Service India
Recent Developments and Deployment Trends
National Lok Adalat Campaign (2025)
India’s 90‑day mediation campaign (July–October 2025) aims to expedite resolution of backlog cases across taluk, district, and high courts. Over 147,000 cases were registered in Belagavi for potential mediation resolution via National Lok Adalat—a statutory conciliation mechanism offering voluntary, binding settlement without court fees.Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2The Times of India+2
Institutional Strengthening
Institutions like the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) in Hyderabad have ramped up pro bono mediation services and training initiatives, reflecting a proactive push to expand institutional capacity.The Times of India
Strengths & Emerging Practice Models
-
Case Pendency Reduction: Mandated mediation—especially via Lok Adalats—enables mass resolution of cases, easing court backlog.Drishti IASInternational Bar AssociationThe Times of India
-
Formal Institutional Framework: The Mediation Act’s structure—via MSPs and the MCI—provides credibility, professional standards, and scalability.Legal Service India+1Drishti Judiciary+1
-
Binding Settlement Mechanism: Enforceability of mediated agreements increases certainty and practical utility.Wikipedia+8Mondaq+8O.P. Jindal Global University+8
Challenges & Critical Gaps
🚨 Lack of Awareness & Training
Many litigants, judges, and lawyers lack clarity on mediation’s purpose, process, or benefits—undermining its adoption and effectiveness.The Hindu Business Line+1International Bar Association+1
🚨 Resource & Capacity Constraints
There is a shortage of qualified mediators, especially for specialized sectors. Courts and MSPs lack consistent infrastructure and governance mechanisms.Khurana And KhuranaThe RMLNLU Law Review Blog
🚨 Ensuring Fairness & Safeguards
Mandatory mediation may disadvantage weaker parties—especially where power dynamics favor more resourceful counterparts—if safeguards are weak. Court oversight and confidentiality enforcement remain critical.The Hindu Business LineDrishti IAS
Recommendations for Robust Mandated Mediation Framework
-
Expand Mediator Training & Accreditation
MCI and MSPs should partner with legal education bodies to train mediators in ethics, sector-specific mediation (e.g. family, commercial) and community contexts. -
Raise Awareness Among Legal Professionals & Litigants
Integrate mediation modules into legal curriculums, and launch public campaigns to explain mediation benefits, procedural steps, and opt‑out rights. -
Monitor Implementation & Settlement Outcomes
Establish dashboards at courts capturing referral rates, settlement ratios, timelines, and user feedback. Use data to strengthen policy. -
Safeguard Weak or Vulnerable Parties
Ensure mediation sessions are supported by legal aid or independent advisors for parties with power disadvantages, especially in family or consumer disputes. -
Strengthen Court Oversight Mechanisms
Train judges to assess suitability of mediation referrals, ensure confidentiality, and monitor mediators’ neutrality and compliance with procedural norms.
Conclusion
Court‑mandated mediation in India—embodied by the Mediation Act, 2023 and mandatory pre‑litigation mediation under the Commercial Courts Act—marks a transformative attempt to foster consensual justice and ease judicial burden. With enforceable settlement agreements and an institutional framework led by the Mediation Council of India, the system offers promise.
However, mandatory mediation must be implemented thoughtfully—to preserve party autonomy, ensure fairness, and avoid superficial formalities. India needs robust capacity building, transparency, resource strengthening, and public trust in the mediation process before it can realize its full democratizing potential.
When integrated within Lok Adalats, court referrals, and institutional mediation centers, court‑mandated mediation can significantly deepen access to justice, reduce case pendency, and position India as a global alternative‑dispute‑resolution hub—only if executed with procedural consciousness and systemic readiness.